Just to make the point I have two "Zeiss" lenses marked with T* and dual serial numbers. They are made by Sony. So I'm not Zeiss sceptic.

You are also right that sharpening is part of the mix. A lens having benign aberrations would sharpen better than one having extreme corrections.

I also checked out the Diglloyd article and his finding was in part the reason I posted the question. He essentially says that the lens is lacking contrast and needs to be stopped down to f/11, but when stopped down it draws lovely. Diglloyd says that it is only matched by the 100/2 Macro Planar. I mostly shoot at f/8 so F/11 is OK with me.

A couple issues where I don't agree, but I am open for good explanations:

1) Flatness of field. When I shoot landscape, more often than not everything is at infinity. Curvature of field would affect edges and corners negatively: I would claim that a landscape subject at infinity when rendered in the focal plane would be flat. So I would argue that low curvature of field is important.

2) To my knowledge diffraction is only dependent on lens opening. Now, the shape of the aperture matters but most modern lenses I have nearly circular aperture. Diffraction is a property of light and nothing lens designers can do about. The reason that lenses loose sharpness is diffraction. The earlier a lens is becoming diffraction limited the better is the lens.

Now, I may be wrong on these issues. You can perhaps explain where I err, or point me to some source of information? Life is a learning experience!

Also, could you post a sample with an example of "this 3D look", perhaps also with another image lacking the 3D look. It is much talked about, but I have not seen it demonstrated. Well possible that my Zeiss lenses have some of that 3D-look, I don't know.

the Zeiss MF lenses that we use are somehow misrepresented by the shere numbers. If you read Lloyds test he also states this.it is my experience that many lenses, especially from the MF range are totally misunderstood and should be looked at new from a digital point of view.First- a larger imagecircle and the longer Flange Focal Distance result in chromafree and very low vignetting images. This kind of uniformityis much more important than what people see in these MTF charts, which are valid only for flat repro situations which are not occuring in 99% of all images shot.A final sharpening of very uniform and clean but not so sharp image will result in a better image than a pinsharp center with a lightfalloff with chromas in the edges anduneven image character.

I see this proofed by many of our customer Photos who are more and more realizing that the current mainstream of lens"knowhow" totally misrepresentsthe fact that some older lenses are also not so much prone to diffraction (many new lenses have their peak at open aperture which makes them nearly unusableif you NEED to stop them down e.g. for product Photography where you just need this depth of field and struggle for every mm !)

This in combination with the special T* coating (7 layer-still best of all!) and a much denser blue channel (about 15-20%) gives the Zeiss glass this 3D look.

I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

About the 3D look, of course this is subjektive, but I´d propose to go over to flickr and take a look at the Zeiss groups, any user of these lenses reports this, but of course asnobody permanently keeps a complete double set of lenses to test in his bag you will not find much 1:1 examples.This was also discussed to death half a zillion times now, just type Zeiss 3D look into google and you will find exactly 1610000 results for this search.I guess I will not start nr. 16100001.

I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

About the 3D look, of course this is subjektive, but I´d propose to go over to flickr and take a look at the Zeiss groups, any user of these lenses reports this, but of course asnobody permanently keeps a complete double set of lenses to test in his bag you will not find much 1:1 examples.This was also discussed to death half a zillion times now, just type Zeiss 3D look into google and you will find exactly 1610000 results for this search.I guess I will not start nr. 16100001.

I just wanted to point you on a discussion on the Openphotography forum from 2007 that was discussing this exact same subject but I just saw that the comparison images are gone now.

You can try yourself, all the Zeiss lenses with the latest T* cotaing do show this, best comaprison maybe the 100mm Zeiss makro and the 100mm EF Canon makro.

The Blue channel (as in RGB....) is denser with more info on the zeiss one the exact same scene, lighting and processing. This is also the reason why the Zeiss lenses always look cooler and the Canon look yellowish.

You don't think that this would be related to better correction of the secondary spectrum on the Zeiss lens? I mean better correction of chromatic aberration in the blue part of the spectrum?

If I had Nikon or Canon I would probably just buy a Zeiss 100/2 Macro Planar to find out. I could put it my Sony with a Leitax adapter but loose automatic aperture and AF and 100 macro is not something I use very often.

I guess I try to compare the Zeiss lenses I have with the other lenses I have to begin with. I don't know about how much Zeiss the Sony lenses are, but they have T* markings, Zeiss serial numbers (in addition to Sonys) and came with a QC certificate from Zeiss (but no MTF curves).

I may end up buying a Hartblei? Who knows? The Sony FF I have right now is an Alpha 900, and it lacks live view. I do regard LV necessary for accurate focus with TS lenses. I have the new Alpha 99 on order and I think that camera is more suitable to work with T/S lenses.

I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues. I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS. I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations. C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool. I end up using both. I'm working on automating the process with new profiles and presets in C1 and LR. When it comes together, the results are stunning.

It does come down to flexability. I understand not liking DSLRs, its just a different experience from MF. I like to work with both, although I favor using my 501cm with TMax over anything else.

I think that is really the issue of True Focus right there. If the combined movement if photographer and model is more than 10 mm it fails. If you move 5 mm and the model moves 5 mm, the shot is out of focus. If even one of you is mostly still, it is a godsend. This is why the discussion is so polarized -- there is no middle ground. It either works for you or it doesn't. If it does work for you, it can be the difference between being able to use MFD vs. confined to DSLR.

I think people also fail to realize that needs are different for each photographer. I'm in the process of evaluating a new camera system, and it has to be flexible because I'm not entirely sure where I am going as a photographic direction. I was all excited to get a D800 until I spent a little time with one and realized it is the feel and format of DSLRs that I dislike the most. The resolution is great. The color reproduction is less so. Against a new Credo there is no comparison. Against a 25-40 mp Aptus or P-series Phase back of somewhat more comparable cost the decision process isn't that easy. If you need leaf shutter lenses or need lens movements the decision is easy, but if those are only things that you would really like to have some of the time, it gets tough. Same with telephotos. If you need them, the choice is easy. If you use a short tele on occasion, the choice gets harder. Sure the D800 is a relative bargain, that is undeniable, the question is whether it works for you or not. And that is a question that I have had a hard time answering.

I've had a mixed experience with D800e color, partly due to some software issues. I can get what I want but it takes some work in both the raw converter and in PS. I like LR4 for the D800 in MOST situations. C1 gets a sharper TIFF, but the profiles can be strange, but then again, C1's color editor is a very powerful and effective tool. I end up using both. I'm working on automating the process with new profiles and presets in C1 and LR. When it comes together, the results are stunning.

It does come down to flexability. I understand not liking DSLRs, its just a different experience from MF. I like to work with both, although I favor using my 501cm with TMax over anything else.

It depend of your work and How you work.I prefer MF becouse I can see better in the finder. soon I make portraits F2,8 T 1/2 sec. and with 35mm it was really hard the focus, with the autofocus too..Os for this that I choose MF and not 35mmI tested IQ160 and Nikon D800, the file on the screen is not so different. I didn't printed in large size...Only in the green of the grass and trees there is a difference.

Today I returned my D800e to the Nikon service point to get the green screen calibrated. This must be the most horrible screen I have ever used. I got so annoyed by its ugliness it started to have an impact on my shooting.

The colors that come out of the D800 are my next main gripe. Very nice for product work but I detest the rendering of skintones. The files also have what I would call 'a deep green undertow' that is very hard to get rid off without altering other things. Compared to the D800 my HB files are a true joy to open. Probably I need to just figure out how to get where I want but I have never had a Nikon that behaved this way colorwise.

I am also not so sure whether I find the new AF module more pleasant to use than the old one that was in the D3s and D700.

All in all, sofar this is the Nikon DSLR I have had the hardest time getting used to, I started with the D1 and have used most Nikon DSLR's.

Glad I'm not alone! I have my Canon and Leaf workflows down to a science, everything is what I expect from those cameras. it just throws me off having to work this stuff, and I really think it comes down to the profiles.

Today I returned my D800e to the Nikon service point to get the green screen calibrated. This must be the most horrible screen I have ever used. I got so annoyed by its ugliness it started to have an impact on my shooting.

The colors that come out of the D800 are my next main gripe. Very nice for product work but I detest the rendering of skintones. The files also have what I would call 'a deep green undertow' that is very hard to get rid off without altering other things. Compared to the D800 my HB files are a true joy to open. Probably I need to just figure out how to get where I want but I have never had a Nikon that behaved this way colorwise.

I am also not so sure whether I find the new AF module more pleasant to use than the old one that was in the D3s and D700.

All in all, sofar this is the Nikon DSLR I have had the hardest time getting used to, I started with the D1 and have used most Nikon DSLR's.

No I cannot (largely because the body is already gone with UPS), the screen is way too green. This seems to be a pretty widespread issue. Apparently Nikon can calibrate it and fix that. At least one of my issues will be levied.

About the files, I am sure eventually I will get out of it what I like but I dislike opening the files for the first time and the amount of effort it takes sofar to get near I want is more than I would have preferred.

I like working with gelled flash and this is typically where the D800 behaves very differently than my D700 or the H4D. Profiling is kind of useless when going for pleasant (vs accurate). I probably need to look for different gels in this case.

I can live with it, for now. It isn't that bad and is more visible in daylight. Otherwise no problems, other than the color issues. The problems I am having are not hardware related. I can get amazing colors from it, its just work that I haven't had to do in years. I don't like having to use LR and C1, depending on the file. The D800e is very IR sensative. Not as bad as the M8, but with some lenses blacks go purple.

And Moire. I've seen it. Less than with my Aptus 75s, 5d2 and 5d3, but in places I don't expect. By places I don't expect, I mean when shooting outside, on the street. I've only seen moire in the studio, and on the street only with the M8. But I found moire in a guy's sweatsuit and hat. I couldn't see the pattern in the clothes from 20 feet, but the D800e resolved it TOO well. Fixed easily in C1, by the way.

No I cannot (largely because the body is already gone with UPS), the screen is way too green. This seems to be a pretty widespread issue. Apparently Nikon can calibrate it and fix that. At least one of my issues will be levied.

About the files, I am sure eventually I will get out of it what I like but I dislike opening the files for the first time and the amount of effort it takes sofar to get near I want is more than I would have preferred.

I like working with gelled flash and this is typically where the D800 behaves very differently than my D700 or the H4D. Profiling is kind of useless when going for pleasant (vs accurate). I probably need to look for different gels in that case.

Regarding moiré, I guess we have been warned. The D800 has OLP filtering while the D800E has some engineering work done to remove the effect of the OLP filter. But rejoice, my understanding is that moiré actually means that your lens outresolves the sensor. So when you see moiré you know having exact focus and good microcontrast at pixel level. So the moiré actually shows that your technique is good!

I can live with it, for now. It isn't that bad and is more visible in daylight. Otherwise no problems, other than the color issues. The problems I am having are not hardware related. I can get amazing colors from it, its just work that I haven't had to do in years. I don't like having to use LR and C1, depending on the file. The D800e is very IR sensative. Not as bad as the M8, but with some lenses blacks go purple.

And Moire. I've seen it. Less than with my Aptus 75s, 5d2 and 5d3, but in places I don't expect. By places I don't expect, I mean when shooting outside, on the street. I've only seen moire in the studio, and on the street only with the M8. But I found moire in a guy's sweatsuit and hat. I couldn't see the pattern in the clothes from 20 feet, but the D800e resolved it TOO well. Fixed easily in C1, by the way.

You could try my sharpening settings, enclosed below. This goes into deconvolution. Radius should match PSF of lens+sensor so you would increase if you stop down. My guess is that 1.5 (or so) works best for D800E at f/16.

BTW. How do you scan T-MAX 100? Trying to get some life in my Pentax 67 but have never been happy with my scans since I shoot DSLRs.